From: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
To: Matias Ezequiel Vara Larsen <mvaralar@redhat.com>
Cc: dverkamp@chromium.org, mst@redhat.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, stefanha@redhat.com,
virtio-dev@lists.linux.dev, oren@nvidia.com, parav@nvidia.com,
nitzanc@nvidia.com, benwalker@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] virtio-blk: Add description for blk_size field
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 17:04:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e893a183-0eb4-4888-a8b3-25c1ca12464f@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZwerV4qPST9bbJ1O@fedora>
On 10/10/2024 13:24, Matias Ezequiel Vara Larsen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wrote some minor comments below.
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 07:05:12PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>> This field is only valid when the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature bit is
>> offered by the device.
>>
>> The blk_size field actually represents the logical block size of the
>> device. It is always a power of two and typically ranges from 512 bytes
>> to larger values such as 4 KB.
>>
>> Add description for this field to provide clarity on its constraints.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@chromium.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> device-types/blk/description.tex | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/device-types/blk/description.tex b/device-types/blk/description.tex
>> index 2712ada..caa5d13 100644
>> --- a/device-types/blk/description.tex
>> +++ b/device-types/blk/description.tex
>> @@ -135,6 +135,9 @@ \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Block Device /
>> present. The availability of the others all depend on various feature
>> bits as indicated above.
>>
>> +The field \field{blk_size} exists only if VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE is offered by the device.
>> +This field reports the block size of the device, expressed in bytes.
>> +
>> The field \field{num_queues} only exists if VIRTIO_BLK_F_MQ is set. This field specifies
>> the number of queues.
>>
>> @@ -282,6 +285,13 @@ \subsection{Device Initialization}\label{sec:Device Types / Block Device / Devic
>>
>> \drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Device Initialization}{Device Types / Block Device / Device Initialization}
>>
>> +Drivers SHOULD negotiate VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE if the feature is offered by the
>> +device. When negotiated, drivers SHOULD interpret the \field{blk_size} as the
>> +logical block size.
>> +
>> +If the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature is not offered by the device, then drivers
>> +MAY assume that the logical block size is 512 bytes.
>> +
>> Drivers SHOULD NOT negotiate VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH if they are incapable of
>> sending VIRTIO_BLK_T_FLUSH commands.
>>
>> @@ -319,6 +329,10 @@ \subsection{Device Initialization}\label{sec:Device Types / Block Device / Devic
>>
>> \devicenormative{\subsubsection}{Device Initialization}{Device Types / Block Device / Device Initialization}
>>
>> +Devices SHOULD always offer VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature. When this feature is
>> +offered, devices MUST initialize \field{blk_size} to a power of two greater
>> +than or equal to 512.
>> +
>> Devices SHOULD always offer VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH, and MUST offer it
>> if they offer VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE.
>>
>> @@ -879,6 +893,14 @@ \subsection{Device Operation}\label{sec:Device Types / Block Device / Device Ope
>> The length of \field{data} MUST be a multiple of 512 bytes for VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN
>> and VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT requests.
>>
>> +The length of \field{data} SHOULD be a multiple of \field{blk_size} for VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN
>> +and VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT requests, when the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature has been
>> +offered by the device.
>> +
> I would rewrite it as:
>
> `When the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature has been offered by the device,
> the length of \field{data} SHOULD be a multiple of \field{blk_size} for
> VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN and VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT requests`
>
> Just because people tend to read from more important to less important
> within a sentence but I do not have an strong opinion about it.
> Apologies if I may sound bit picky ;).
I don't have a strong opinion on it as well.
I'm open to making changes, but I'd appreciate getting input from
MST/Stefan first.
This way, we can ensure we're aligning with their perspective and avoid
potential back-and-forth revisions.
>
>> +The value of \field{sector} (multiplied by 512) SHOULD be a multiple of
>> +\field{blk_size} for VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN and VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT requests, when the
>> +VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature has offered by the device.
>> +
> For the same reason, I would rewrite it as:
>
> `When the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature has offered by the device, the
> value of \field{sector} (multiplied by 512) SHOULD be a multiple of
> \field{blk_size} for VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN and VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT requests`.
>
> I think I would follow this pattern in the text below too.
>
>> The length of \field{data} MUST be a multiple of the size of struct
>> virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes for VIRTIO_BLK_T_DISCARD,
>> VIRTIO_BLK_T_SECURE_ERASE and VIRTIO_BLK_T_WRITE_ZEROES requests.
>> @@ -966,6 +988,18 @@ \subsection{Device Operation}\label{sec:Device Types / Block Device / Device Ope
>> for a write request if the VIRTIO_BLK_F_RO feature if offered, and MUST NOT
>> write any data.
>>
>> +A device MAY set the \field{status} to VIRTIO_BLK_S_IOERR for
>> +VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN or VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT requests if the requested
>> +\field{sector} (multiplied by 512) is not an integer multiple of the device's
>> +\field{blk_size}, when the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature has been offered by
>> +the device.
>> +
>> +A device MAY set the \field{status} to VIRTIO_BLK_S_IOERR for
>> +VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN or VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT requests if the length of the
>> +requested \field{data} is not an integer multiple of the device's
>> +\field{blk_size}, when the VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature has been offered by
>> +the device.
>> +
>> The device MUST set the \field{status} byte to VIRTIO_BLK_S_UNSUPP for
>> discard, secure erase and write zeroes commands if any unknown flag is set.
>> Furthermore, the device MUST set the \field{status} byte to
>> --
>> 2.18.1
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-10 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-09 16:05 [PATCH v3 1/1] virtio-blk: Add description for blk_size field Max Gurtovoy
[not found] ` <ZwerV4qPST9bbJ1O@fedora>
2024-10-10 14:04 ` Max Gurtovoy [this message]
2024-10-10 14:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e893a183-0eb4-4888-a8b3-25c1ca12464f@nvidia.com \
--to=mgurtovoy@nvidia.com \
--cc=benwalker@nvidia.com \
--cc=dverkamp@chromium.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=mvaralar@redhat.com \
--cc=nitzanc@nvidia.com \
--cc=oren@nvidia.com \
--cc=parav@nvidia.com \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=virtio-dev@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox